Jurors are not puppets; the system works

I DISAGREE WITH the Nov. 10 Tribune editorial regarding jurors’ subservience to judges, “Juror must pay price.” My position (separate from the Bergerud trial) is based on general principles which the country’s Founders well-valued.

Unlike England’s old system where jurors were obedient rubber stamps for the courts, our revolutionary forefathers intended for jury trial to stand as protection against men and governments corrupted by power. They knew that unjust laws would be enacted and that judges would become tyrannical.

The ability of even one juror to resist the might of governmental persecution was deliberately given our citizenry, with the moral wisdom that is far better for 100 guilty to go free then to wrongly punish one innocent.

Before the war for Southern independence, Northern juries defied judges and refused to convict in underground railroad cases. The law was wrong — the jurors right.

A Colorado example of juror integrity standing against judicial and prosecutorial treachery is the Rocky Flats “runaway” grand jury. Again, jury members fighting virtuously against abuse of power.

In Denver, the courts’ recent outrageous persecution of Ricky Stanley shows the need for individual jurors to counter judicial manipulation. Stanley (opposing a flagrantly unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms) was forbidden to use constitutionality in his defense. Not even one juror had the courage or decency to defend our Constitution, but rather all chose to be compliant pawns of the court,and a grave injustice was done.

Recommended Stories For You

I wonder if the Tribune’s stance might change if some power-mad judge would try to bully them into revealing a confidential source (with the First Amendment disallowed as valid defense).

The first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, said, “The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”

The second U.S. president, John Adams, said, “It is not only (the trial juror’s) right, but his duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience though in direct opposition of the direction of the court.”

Fellow citizens who revere freedom more than craving control are encouraged to research jury mollification. The historical basis of fully informed and empowered juries (from the Magna Carta, William Penn and John P. Zenger to the 21st Amendment) is fascinating.